The slippery slope: from decriminalization to social acceptance

In an interview on the science in science fiction, novelist William Gibson noted, “[T]he future is already here. It’s just not evenly distributed yet.” What Gibson meant was that the innovations in science fiction could already be found—at least in embryonic form—in our current ideas or technology. Much the same could be said about future social and legal norms concerning the institution of marriage—they are already here, they’re just not evenly distributed yet.

A prime example is the social and legal acceptance of polygamous marriage. [Not to mention contrary-to-nature acts.] The legal bulwark against polygamy was the first to go, dismantled by the Supreme Court ruling Lawrence v. Texas. “Liberty presumes an autonomy of self,” claimed Justice Anthony Kennedy in the majority opinion, “that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct.”

As Justice Antonin Scalia recognized in the minority opinion, the decision could be used to legalize bigamy and would be a “massive disruption of the current social order.” Last week the New York Times featured a story about a polygamist who is suing the state of Utah to overturn its anti-polygamy law that proves Scalia a prophet:

The lawsuit is not demanding that states recognize polygamous marriage. Instead, the lawsuit builds on a 2003 United States Supreme Court decision, Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down state sodomy laws as unconstitutional intrusions on the “intimate conduct” of consenting adults. It will ask the federal courts to tell states that they cannot punish polygamists for their own “intimate conduct” so long as they are not breaking other laws, like those regarding child abuse, incest or seeking multiple marriage licenses.One man’s slippery slope is another’s ladder of progress. Homosexual activists needed over thirty years to go from Stonewall to Goodridge. But they have paved a clearer path for polygamists. And, unlike gay marriage, polygamy already has a long-standing cultural precedent. All of the major world religions—Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Christianity—have at one time in their history condoned the practice of taking multiple spouses.

The same holds true for most every culture on earth. Out of 1170 societies recorded in Murdock’s Ethnographic Atlas, polygyny (the practice of men having more than one wife) is prevalent in 850. Even our own culture, which has an astoundingly high divorce and remarriage rate, practices a form of “serial polygamy.”

Advocates for same-sex marriage often refer to polls showing the social acceptance of homosexual relationships as a justification for expanding the definition of marriage. From this we can adduce, a fortiori, that since polygamy has an even stronger claim to historical and cultural acceptance, it should be included in the new expansion of marriage “rights.”

The appeal to “rights” also undercuts any reason to give special preference to same-sex relationships over polygamous ones. The precedents established in Lawrence and Goodridge are equally applicable to polyamorous relationships and homosexual couplings. As Scalia noted in his dissent, as long as polygamists are not violating established laws or committing child abuse, states no longer have the authority to regulate their living arrangements.

With this decriminalization comes the inevitable push for acceptance. It happened with homosexual relationships and it will happen with polyamorous ones too. And why should society deny a man the right to marry all the women he loves? What reasons do those who favor gay marriage have for excluding polygamy? Having rejected all arguments from nature and reason when they were used against their position, what do they have left to justify their discrimination? [Eventually they will push for a acceptance of bestiality and “marriage” with young children. Once they head down this path, they will try to decriminalize and then push for acceptance.]

The answer is nothing but arbitrary personal preference. Those who truly believe that homosexuals have a legal right to marry someone of the same gender have undercut the grounds for barring polyamorous groups from doing the same. If a man can marry another man why should he be barred from marrying two or three or four men if he chooses? [Or his dog? Or his kid sister? After all, we can’t be species-ist. The degrees of consanguinity – arbitrary, right? The establishment of an age for consent is arbitrary, right? It is only a matter of time before some sickos push for the decriminalization and acceptance of these, and their choices will be aided and defended by liberals.]

Unfortunately, many advocates of same-sex marriage are coming to the same realization, and instead of reconsidering their position, they merely shrug. They agree that allowing one requires allowing the other. But for them, polygamy is at worst an unfortunate but necessary tradeoff on the path to normalizing same-sex unions.

As usual, the progressive legal scholars are ahead of the curve. Six years ago Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, made an eloquent case for the legalization of polygamy:

When the high court struck down anti-sodomy laws in Lawrence vs. Texas, we ended decades of the use of criminal laws to persecute gays. However, this recent change was brought about in part by the greater acceptance of gay men and lesbians into society, including openly gay politicians and popular TV characters.

Such a day of social acceptance will never come for polygamists. It is unlikely that any network is going to air The Polygamist Eye for the Monogamist Guy or add a polygamist twist to Everyone Loves Raymond. No matter. The rights of polygamists should not be based on popularity, but principle.Turley was far too morose in his assessment. It took less than a decade for Kody Brown—the polygamist plaintiff mentioned in the New York Times article—to get a reality TV show. In late 2010, TLC premiered “Sister Wives,” featuring Kody, his four “wives” (he’s legally married to only one woman), and their sixteen children. The promotional material on TLC’s website invites us to “Follow the Brown family and see how they attempt to navigate life as a ‘normal’ family in a society that shuns their polygamist lifestyle.”

After watching the entire first season I can testify that the Brown family is rather “normal”—at least by the standards of our twenty-first century “anything goes” culture. Sure, they’re a bit weird. But who isn’t nowadays? And by society’s moral logic, if you get to know someone and they seem nice and normal then you can’t condemn their lifestyle choices. As long as their flagpole is attached to a well-kept cottage, why shouldn’t they be able to let their freak flag fly?

My fellow Christians are already leading the apathetic shrug of “tolerance.” As one woman wrote on the TLC website:

First off I am not a Mormon, I am Baptist, and let me tell you, those who judge these people remember you shall be judged as you judge. This family is happy, these women all agreed to the arrangement. It is no different than a man having 4 mistresses and children by them. This way they all know about one another, there is no lying, no cheating, there is acceptance and an abundance of love. They need to be left alone to raise their children. God Bless the Browns and keep them safe.That just about says it all, doesn’t it? [Yes. And there is no end to how dumb some people can be,]

The social acceptance of polygamy is already here; it’s just not evenly distributed throughout society. At least not yet.

I’m not sure if y0u keep up with any of the Canadian news, but we just had a huge court case in BC over this, and polygamy is on the verge of being legalized here based on the “freedom of religion” rights. As it is, it’s practiced in parts of Canada that have large populations of immigrants from countries where it’s perfectly normal, and the law in rarely enforced unless there’s accusations of child abuse, such as the case in Bountiful.

All of the major world religions—Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Christianity—have at one time in their history condoned the practice of taking multiple spouses.

I seem to have missed a class in Church History: would someone care to enlighten me as to when the Church “condoned the practice of taking multiple spouses.” Or are our intensely ecumenical friends over at First Things counting Mormons as speaking for “Christianity”?

Just a heads up, but yes, the media already pushes polygamy in the way it pushed homosexual marriage – I believe it’s TLC that airs “Sister Wives” which documents the “trials” of a man married to 5 or 6 women. They live in a large house and raise their many children as one family with multiple mothers.

I cry for those children who grow up thinking that sort of behavior is not only normal, but something to strive for (as it’s brought their family fame and fortune through the series). Ugh… I shudder.

Eh? It is no different than a man having 4 mistresses and children by them.

Baptists don’t recognize mortal sin, but surely the writer doesn’t think there is nothing morally wrong with cohabitation outside of sacramental marriage? And he’s going to shake his finger at me with the “don’t judge” thing?

The world really is off its rocker. I just wish we had a clue how to put it back upright and on the right track. Yes, we need to pray, and yes, the Holy Spirit will do the Holy Spirit’s work, but we need to do our part in the world — if only we can figure out what that is.

If I dare to look into the future, it just might be that the current ‘economic crisis’ is just a symptom of the current ‘family crisis’. We are being cornered to a point where we will have to wise up or become totally irrelevant. If we continue on the wrong path we’ll become not a third world country but a fourth world wasteland. A nation cannot go on like this and continue to prosper. Millions of aborted humans and one man marrying another man and frozen embryos and in vitro babies and surrogate mothers and rampant cohabitation, fornication, contraception, pornography, divorce: if that’s not enough for a meltdown of a nation, I don’t know what is. We are sinking because family life is sinking.

While I agree that toleration/legalization/promotion of polygamy necessarily follows from that of same-sex unions (not to mention serial polygamy), I really don’t think the slippery slope continues to marriage or sexual acts with children or others who don’t or can’t consent.

With all of the problems with society’s moral compass, I just don’t see it rising to the level of accepting child rape.

While I agree that toleration/legalization/promotion of polygamy necessarily follows from that of same-sex unions (not to mention serial polygamy), I really don’t think the slippery slope continues to marriage or sexual acts with children or others who don’t or can’t consent.

By re-defining marriage, the door is wide open for Sharia Law which does include marriage/sexual acts with children. It is just a matter of time.

Before we cast the first stone with child marriage, let’s keep in mind that current Latin Rite law states the minimum age for a marriage is 14 for girls and 16 for boys. These ages was raised from 12 years in the 1917 Code of Canon Law. http://www.canonlaw.info/a_tooyoung.htm

“By re-defining marriage, the door is wide open for Sharia Law which does include marriage/sexual acts with children. It is just a matter of time.”

DFWShook: what do you mean by children? If you mean anyone less than 18 thats one thing. If you mean 8 that’s another. Remember that Almanzo Wilder was courting Laura Ingalls seriously when she was just 15. Our current standards are not necessarily typical.

The Romans I recall were having trouble confining marriage to females over 12. I think the Senate passed decrees three times requiring brides to be at least 13. (A lot of their problem was due to throwing away the female infants leading to scarcity – China take note.)

This is why Catholics will have to embrace libertarianism. It will become imperative that marriage in the Catholic view simply be removed from the clutches of the state. Before anyone says that’s unworkable remember that Imperial Roman society was at least as hostile to Christianity as our contemporary world. Christianity did not triumph by getting the Emperor on board. It triumphed by showing it was a better way to live. Constantine was just ratifying an existing situation.

If one wants to improve the moral tone of society, remember that you are in this for the long haul and won’t see the end of it – any more than Pope Clement of Rome did.

I don’t imagine that we’ll see an organized attempt to lower the age of consent here in
the US, at least not until the sexual abuse of minors is no longer such a convenient stick
for some to beat the Church.

Peggy R @ 3:27pm was right– years ago Senator Santorum pointed out the inevitable
impossibility of any legal boundaries remaining once the premise that the state
could redefine marriage was accepted. He was of course mocked by our shiny modern
betters, but he was right. If you accept the premise that it can be redefined one way, then
you accept that the state could later redefine it any other way it pleases…

chcrix: I think this will answer your question: http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=68074 Under Sharia Law menarche is usually the determining factor as to when a female is eligible to marry. There are some caveats which allow for the marriage of a female prior to menarche. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baligh The average age of menarche is 11.75 years while being 12.5 years in the US.

Under the present circumstances, I don’t think there is any way we will be able to avoid legalizing polygamy. But on the up side, I think I’ll be laughing my butt off when the corporate world realizes how much this is going to cost them in employment benefits.

Here’s a link to Santorum’s prediction. He was right along with A. Scalia. He took a lot of heat for it. Still does today.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_controversy_regarding_homosexuality
—
Also on age. I just read a National Geo article in which the western (American?) reporter was horrified at the arranged marriages of girls under 18. There is a strong desire by western feminists to see that girls get an opportunity at education. The “backwards” cultures of Islamic villages are not what the modern feminist is going to work toward. But the feminist could not answer a father who asked how otherwise–than to have his daughter married young (or promised young)–to protect his daughter from the uncivilized men who accost and rape unspoken for girls.

But, our American society does infantilize us too long. School until 25 or so. Marriage maybe by 30…and to be able to reproduce so late is hard. American kids ought to be prepared to live independently by the time they are 18, if not sooner. We aren’t doing a good job as a society on that.

All of the major world religions—Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Christianity—have at one time in their history condoned the practice of taking multiple spouses.

My take on the reason for including Christianity in this list would be that we had our origins in Judaism and include the Old Testament in our sacred scriptures. I’m not sure if that’s really correct, but that’s what I assume was the author’s intent.

In any event, the analysis above is missing the liberal counter-argument to bigamy, one viewpoint Hagerty represented in her piece by quoting a professor from Yeshiva University’s law school:

This isn’t about personal rights, says Marci Hamilton. It’s about a state’s ability to regulate marital relationships. Hamilton, an expert on polygamy law and a professor at Cardozo School of Law, says there is a mountain of evidence that polygamy is bad for women and children. Just do the math, she says: A man who has multiple wives will have to marry younger — often underage — brides as he runs out of women his age.

“This isn’t a lifestyle choice,” she says. “This is a culture in which men must rule and women are not equal. Three women are equal to one man, nine women are equal to one man — and the children are second-class citizens.”

Hamilton says there have been more than 100 challenges to polygamy laws, including in Utah, and all have failed.

{…}

Sure, the Supreme Court ruled that private sexual conduct between consenting adults is protected. But, she says, “The court does not say that every activity involving sex is now immune from regulation.”

Just days ago, I made a comment to a fellow blogger that I am fully expecting polygamy to quickly follow the acceptance of contrary to nature acts. I feel so inclined to ask, “where are we going and why am I in this handbasket?”

“As long as their flagpole is attached to a well-kept cottage, why shouldn’t they be able to let their freak flag fly?”

The UU place (do they call it a church?) in my town is literally an ultra quaint cottage with a rainbow flag on the high flagpole. As I pass by it on my way to Mass, I ponder if the hip,tolerant, certain demographic (married, 60 years old, white, subaru, cough cough) who attend have any concept of what really goes on under the auspice of the rainbow, i.e. the difference between family-friendly, carefully scrubbed (almost) gay pride parades and, say, Dore Alley parade (careful if you google the images). How about the local bath house? How about xyx they have absolutely no concept of and would simply wither at?

Once we have polygamy and same-sex “marriage,” the single people are going to ask, “What is there about this so-called institution of marriage that benefits society? What part of their ‘contract’ has to do with anyone but themselves and what part are they held to when it no longer suits them?” It will be very hard to explain to the single people why they ought to foot the bill for extending any of the priveleges of marriage, save automatic rights of inheritance, mutual visitation rights, and an established way to divide assets in the event of a break-up….and they’re going to want the married people to cover the costs of that, too. They might go for tax breaks for adults with children, but forget any financial advantage for adults with a legal partner.

Considering the many definitions of family that are accepted, one as good as another, it would be hard to mount an argument against the complaint.

I don’t know if marriage with very young girls will become widely socially acceptable but sexual activity with the children(this includes homosexual incest) is already acceptable in some liberal circles. I know personally, in real life, a handful of people who think that this sort of behavior is completely normal. One of my biggest fears for the future is that by the time I have children this “open-mindedness” will be written into law and I will not be able to protect my children from those who most of us rightly see as predators.

Titus: I seem to have missed a class in Church History: would someone care to enlighten me as to when the Church “condoned the practice of taking multiple spouses.”

My intent in using the word “condone” was in the strict sense of “to disregard or overlook.” In that sense, we have two giants of the faith who publically condoned polygamy.

Aquinas thought that polygamy was not the Christian ideal, but was not intrinsically evil. And in a letter to the Saxon Chancellor Gregor Brück, Luther stated that he could not “forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict Scripture.”

So we can blame the Thomists and the Lutherans for not upholding the Christian condemnation against polygamy. ; )

Or are our intensely ecumenical friends over at First Things counting Mormons as speaking for “Christianity”?

I can’t speak for others at First Things but my ecumenicism doesn’t include considering Mormons (or any other deniers of the trinity) to be “Christian.”

wecahill: Is the author referring to Martin Luther? Certainly no Catholic ever did so (and remained Catholic!).

When the first same sex polygamous ‘marriage’ occurs, I think even some liberals will shake their heads and wonder ‘what next’. As to children, a state can choose to ignore its own laws as does Holland where the age of consent is officially 16 for both heterosexual and homosexual sex but no action is taken where the child is between 12 and 16 and neither the child nor its parents complain to the police, any other complainant is ignored. So effectively the age of consent in Holland is 12, this could (and probably does) happen in other countries.
It will be interesting to see what happens with the Mormons whose official line appears to be that polygamy is divinely instituted but against the law of the land. It seems that they have left open the possibility in their statutes that it may at some point be re-introduced. The polygamous off-shoot organisations of the LDS will have a ‘field day’ if the secular law permits polygamy but the LDS will not.

When the purpose of human sexuality is considered to be only for personal pleasure, overindulgence becomes the great virtue. When one believes the purpose is participation with God in the great creative act of new life…what, the fear (awe) of God is the beginning of wisdom.

I recently had a middle aged woman in my office reveal her dismay at her grown children. Both are having babies out of wedlock. (man that seems old fashion to say). She lamented to me that, “I never raised my children that way”. I remembered many times overhearing her say that gay marriage is a right and there should be no discrimination against it. She did not hesitate to refer to us against same sex unions as: homophobes. She has always been very pro abortion. I think she even got her daughter on the Pill while in college. I said nothing to her in responce. I just didnt know where to begin….

Or his dog? Or his kid sister? After all, we can be species-ist. The degrees of consanguinity – arbitrary, right?

This reminds me of a story at the satirical Eastern Orthodox site The Onion Dome (now sadly defunct), about a similar marriage allegedly happening in Russia, this one involving, if I remember correctly, “two lucky guys, three lucky girls, and a lemur, whose luck was questionable.”

With regard to St. Thomas Aquinas and Martin Luther – it is clear from the New Testament Scriptures that the only restriction to one-man/one-woman marriage is that imposed upon Bishops, Priests, & Deacons.

The difference between Luther and St. Thomas is that the former rejected the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church and teachings of Her Magisterium wrt marriage (that’s also why divorce is rarely condemned within Protestantism, and as I understand it within Eastern Orthodoxy as well), while the latter fully embraced Her teaching authority and Sacred Tradition on marriage.

So, here’s a perfect case where Christian tradition makes up for what isn’t specified at all in Holy Scripture – namely, that the perfection of the family comes via what God has ordained in His Revelation to the Church outside of Holy Scripture, which is through one-man/one-woman marriage for life.

In other words, “Sola Scriptura” isn’t nearly enough to discern God’s Will – certainly, not on the issue of marriage. Much of Protestant theology fails miserably in this arena….

So, polygamy cannot be denied other than to ordained ministers, unless one subscribes & submits to the time-honored Sacred Tradition of Christian marriage and the God-ordained teaching authority of His Church – the CATHOLIC Church.

We certainly can’t blame all of the problems of modern-day society on what Martin Luther started via the Protestant Reformation. But, the seeds that it has planted (i.e. the private interpretation of Scripture, and “primacy of conscience”, to name two of its most fallacious heresies) certainly have played a MAJOR role, and have helped to bring forth some VERY rotten fruit for western society today….

After reading a few blogs this week and seeing a Michael Voris video this week on the Knights of Columbus, and with the homosexuals gaining fast ground in the world and perhaps polygamy too like this article says, I’m beginning to think we Catholics don’t have much time left. Seems that the great Chastizement is encroaching upon us and reving up speed. I feel like I should be getting supplies and maybe even arms. Faithwize I even set out over a whole year creating four 3″ binders full of knowledge on the Church moral principles and and printing out many catholic.com articles from This Rock and certain Vatican documents, as well as buying certain Catholic books in case the inevitable happens.

@SMC-BC: I think I’ll be laughing my butt off when the corporate world realizes how much this is going to cost them in employment benefits.

Unfortunately, those costs will be passed along to the consumer, us.

Search Fr. Z’s Blog

Search for:

SHOPPING ONLINE? Please, always come here first!

Enter Amazon through my link. Click the image below (they took away our search box!). Fr Z will get a small percentage of what you spend. (Pssst - Can't see it? Turn off your "ad-blocker" for this site!)

“This blog is like a fusion of the Baroque ‘salon’ with its well-tuned harpsichord around which polite society gathered for entertainment and edification and, on the other hand, a Wild West “saloon” with its out-of-tune piano and swinging doors, where everyone has a gun and something to say. Nevertheless, we try to point our discussions back to what it is to be Catholic in this increasingly difficult age, to love God, and how to get to heaven.” – Fr. Z

YOUR RECENT COMMENTS

billy15: This news really, really saddens me. Especially because I was JUST there on Wednesday afternoon with my family. It wasn’ ;t the first time I was at the parish though. In fact, the...

acardnal: Video from GloriaTV wherein Henry Sire speaks about his previous book “Pho enix from the Ashes̶ 1; at the Roman Forum. HERE

cengime: Now some people will stop reminding us that they have shady connection s in Italy and won’ t share their secret inside informatio n on the book’ ;s authorship no matter how much...

JustaSinner: Break the law, boo hoo, Cali does it all the time; sanctuary state anyone? I’m ready to enlist for a civil war in CA; love to break me some Cali stuff!

mindpopcornball: If this doesn̵ 7;t get a QUICK, FAIR AND THOROUGH investigat ion, adopt a tactic of the left and start picketing the Cardinal 8217;s home and speaking venues because...

The Masked Chicken: This brings to mind so many thoughts :) 1. Is confession by telepathy valid? 2. Confessing across a prison glass reminds me, for some reason, of the Monty Python skit, “...

tamranthor: I would be willing to compromise with the state of California , were they to likewise post, in huge typeface, at every office of every doctor and abortionis t in the state, that abort...

NBW: The hypocrisy runs deep with Cupich; he invites a pro-homose xual priest to speak at Holy Name and urges us to read Fr. MartinR 17;s book and not to judge̷ 0;.Then he swiftly removes a...

bobbird: PLEASE NOTE: Thomas Woods would be an excellent consultant regarding the dangers of making a federal case out of these issues. The First Amendment, correctly applied and understood within...

Geoffrey: Wow! I recently purchased “The Knights of Malta: A Modern Resurrecti on” by H.J.A. Sire. Excellent book. Now the “ins ider” ; details outlined in the Order of...

jaykay: I got the Kindle version of “Pho enix from the Ashes̶ 1; last year, via a quote and reference in Prof. Kwasniewsk i’s latest book which I was reading at the time. I was...

JesusFreak84: I honestly presumed the author was a member of the clergy, partially because that would have explained perfectly why the author would use (indeed, need,) a pen name to begin with. I...

JesusFreak84: The Shrine of Christ the King, Sovereign Priest, recently had to relocate its Masses to the social hall, so the only statue in the newly-dubb ed St. Joseph Crypt Chapel is the huge...

JesusFreak84: I’ve been to events at St. John Cantius on and off, and I’ve heard Father say some things that I think are nutty, (“Po kemon opens your kids to demonic possess...

tzabiega: In regards to the question why Father Phillips was part of the Resurrecti onists and not part of the Canons Regular of St. John Cantius that he himself establishe d. I have some thoug...

New Sister: Likening it to a hearing aid is what I first thought of, too… and recalled seeing these inside the confession als at the St Elizabeth Ann Seaton Shrine, Emmetsburg , MD. https:/...

New Sister: Likening it to a hearing aid is what I first thought of, too… and recalled seeing these inside the confession als at the St Elizabeth Ann Seaton Shrine, Emmitsburg , MD. https:/...

Ultrarunner: Confession , any way you look at it, appears to be a dying sacrament or at least one on serious life support. Making it highly available and accessible by way of secure digital voice...

Blackfriar: I should qualify my earlier remark: when I wrote “ 230; no different to a priest hearing confession using a hearing aid” I was referring to the question of validi...

LaPucelle: March 22, 2018, Thursday, 6-7:30 pm, Rosary Rally against Fr. Martin’s Lenten talk. In front of the Holy Name Cathedral. Fr. Martin promotes the acceptance of the LGBTQ lifestyle in the...

Hans: We will be veiling statues in my parish for the first time in anyoneR 17;s memory, though the veils are still being made.

teomatteo: Age? All I know if I had to carve that by hand-by my self- i’d be really old.

maternalView: Inside and outside the church everything is dumbed down lest we offend someone. This holds true whether it’s a moral principle or simply a preference . It affects all ages too....

Anita Moore, O.P.(lay): I add the Litany of St. Joseph to my Sunday Rosary, for the intention of the Universal Church, whose patron he is. We could really use his help right now.

Fr Martin Fox: When I have had occasion to hear a confession through the glass, I cautioned the penitent about the uncertaint y over his confession being overheard. I understand law enforcemen t...

Paypal Donation

Let us pray…

Grant unto thy Church, we beseech
Thee, O merciful God, that She, being
gathered together by the Holy Ghost, may
be in no wise troubled by attack from her
foes.
O God, who by sin art offended and by
penance pacified, mercifully regard the
prayers of Thy people making supplication
unto Thee,and turn away the scourges of
Thine anger which we deserve for our sins.
Almighty and Everlasting God, in
whose Hand are the power and the
government of every realm: look down upon
and help the Christian people that the heathen
nations who trust in the fierceness of their
own might may be crushed by the power of
thine Arm. Through our Lord Jesus Christ,
Thy Son, who liveth and reigneth with Thee
in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world
without end. R. Amen.

My "challenge coin" for my 25th anniversary of ordination in 2016.

Want one? I do exchanges with military and LEOs, etc. and you can make a donation.

I travel a good deal. As I get older, it takes more of a toll. My main airline - sigh - is Delta. Were I to get some Gift Cards for Delta, I could more easily upgrade for longer flights. I'm just sayin'. I'd be much obliged. HERE

New miscellaneous releases and events

Yes, Fr. Z is taking ads…

For example...

A great hymnal…

Because it matters what children read…

I carry one of these super-strong rosaries in my spare mag pouch! The Swiss Guards have them too!

The Swiss Guard have these rosaries!For the story clickHERE and HERE (esp. 18:00)

Because you don’t know when you are going to need to move fast or get along without the supermarket…

To set up a recurring, monthly donation via PAYPAL (even a small one) go to the bottom of this blog and look for the drop down menu! Do you want yet another alternative to PayPal? I have set up an account with
CONTINUE TO GIVE
Get a link to donate via CONTINUE TO GIVE using your smart phone.
SEND MESSAGE:
4827563
TO:
715-803-4772
They take a larger percent taste, but they are an alternative.

I remember benefactors in my prayers and periodically say Mass for your intention.

This catechism helped to bring Fr. Z into the Catholic Church!

Be a “Zed-Head”!

Fathers, you don’t know who might show up! It could be a “big fish” of one sort or other…

And... GO TO CONFESSION!

“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”

What people say about Fr. Z

"Rev. John Zuhlsdorf, a traditionalist blogger who has never shied from picking fights with priests, bishops or cardinals when liturgical abuses are concerned."
- Kractivism

"Father John Zuhlsdorf is a crank" "Father Zuhlsdorf drives me crazy" "the hate-filled Father John Zuhlsford" [sic]"Father John Zuhlsdorf, the right wing priest who has a penchant for referring to NCR as the 'fishwrap'"
- Michael Sean Winters

"Fr Z is a true phenomenon of the information age: a power blogger and a priest."
- Anna Arco

“Given that Rorate Coeli and Shea are mad at Fr. Z, I think it proves Fr. Z knows what he is doing and he is right.”
- Comment

"Let me be clear. Fr. Z is a shock jock, mostly. His readership is vast and touchy. They like to be provoked and react with speed and fury."
- Sam Rocha

"Father Z’s Blog is a bright star on a cloudy night."
- Comment

"A cross between Kung Fu Panda and Wolverine."
- Anonymous

Fr. Z is officially a hybrid of Gandalf and Obi-Wan XD
- Comment

Rev. John Zuhlsdorf, a scrappy blogger popular with the Catholic right.
- America Magazine

RC integralist who prays like an evangelical fundamentalist.
-Austen Ivereigh on Twitter

“For me the saddest thing about Father Z’s blog is how cruel it is.... It’s astonishing to me that a priest could traffic in such cruelty and hatred.”
- Jesuit homosexualist James Martin to BuzzFeed

Fr. Z's is one of the more cheerful blogs out there and he is careful about keeping the crazies out of his commboxes
- Paul in comment at 1 Peter 5

I am a Roman Catholic, in no small part, because of your blog.
I am a TLM-going Catholic, in no small part, because of your blog.
And I am in a state of grace today, in no small part, because of your blog.
- Tom in comment

More stuff…

Archives

ENTRY CALENDAR

Do you use my blog often? Is it helpful to you?

If so, please consider subscribing to send a monthly donation. That way I have steady income I can plan on, and you wind up regularly on my list of benefactors for whom I pray and for whom I periodically say Holy Mass.

Some options

Admin Stuff

The opinions expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect the positions of any of the Catholic Church's entities with which I am involved. They are my own. Opinions expressed by commentators in the comments belong to the commentators.